1996 PLP 206 (PLC)
TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF KARACHI Versus MUHAMMAD IRFAN
| Citation | 1996 PLP 206 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF KARACHI Versus MUHAMMAD IRFAN |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 206 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996 PLP 206 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP 206 (PLC) (TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF KARACHI Versus MUHAMMAD IRFAN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Rehman Butt for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 16th October, 1995.
- Heard Mr. Abdul Rehman Butt, Advocate for the appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 25-A
Date. of birth
Alteration of date of birth was challenged by employer contending that according to settlement date of birth of employee could not be altered on expiry of period of six months from date of settlement
Contention was repelled holding that determination of correct age was a vested right which had given a continuing cause of action and no limitation would run against it even though a settlement had been reached that alteration should be claimed within six months.
Judgment & Decree
Abdul Rehman Butt for Appellant. Date of hearing: 16th October, 1995. Heard Mr. Abdul Rehman Butt, Advocate for the appellant. This appeal arises from an order of the Fifth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi, by which petition under section 25‑A of the I.R.O., for alteration of the date of birth and superannuation, was allowed against the K.P.T.
2. It is the case of the K.P.T. that date of birth of the respondent was recorded as 10‑7‑1931 at the time of his appointment on the basis of the opinion of the Chief Medical Officer regarding age. The respondent on completion of the age of 60 years became due for retirement on 10‑7‑1991. It has been contended by the respondent on the other hand that his age of retirement falls on 11‑1‑1996. That he had applied for alteration of the date of birth on confirmation. The respondent produced extract from the ‑ Town Committee Hazaro Birth Register. He also produced his Identity Card showing the date of birth as claimed by the respondent. That his date of birth appears on the Seniority List as 11‑1‑1936. 3: It has been contended by the appellants that according to settlement the date of birth of a worker cannot be altered on expiry of period of six months from the date of settlement, but there is no limitation of age which keeps running till it is stopped from above. It has been rightly held by the Labour Court that determination of the correct age is a vested right which gives a continuing cause of action and no limitation run against it even though a settlement has been reached, that the alteration should be claimed within six months.
4. I find no substance in this appeal which is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./2532/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.